• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Are camcorders reign coming to and end?

Jim2012

Standard Member
Interesting one!

I've gone the other way round - I use my camcorder for stills. :laugh:

Seriously, I think an all-in-one solution for video and stills is the way to go; who can be bothered to lug 2 different units about when you're on holiday?
 

andy1249

Distinguished Member
Interesting subject.

Reading the photography magazines/press , a single camera that does both seems to be the way to go , with RED getting all the attention at the moment.

Take a look here ,

Movies, Television, and Magazines shot on RED Digital Cinema cameras and equipment

Click on the Cinema section to see some well known movies that were done on the same cameras !!

Those are no where near affordable for the Typical home enthusaist though , so DSLR's will be around for a while yet.

I still dont think DSLR's are quite ready to replace a dedicated camcorder for your typical family events yet though , because while the latest DSLR's can shoot video in Jawdropping quality , choice of lens and knowing exactly what to do with them is hugely important and requires constant attention while filming.

A good camcorder has that point and shoot ability that is not there with DSLR's yet. Swapping lenses and adjusting setups while the kids tear around at birthday party wired up on sugar is just not practical , and means you simply miss a lot of stuff.
 

rogs

Well-known Member
DSLRs aren't that good at being video cameras. Apart from auto focus issues (a situation I believe is improving -- not sure though?), the ergonomics tend to be all wrong.

But the most telling difference is the lack of optical low pass filter, which can cause horrendous aliasing problems.

OK, people like all the fancy trick bits which a huge sensor helps with --interchangeable lenses, good low light performance, shallow depth of field etc.... but the slow scan rolling shutter, and the alias issues with DSLRs mean that camcorders probably have still have a bit of life in them yet.....
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
Prometius Xex - that certainly is a nice camera, with its advanced Audio arrangement, but it fails the Camcorder Test because it is really a DSLR (of sorts). Having no powered zoom is a severe limitation IMHO and the heavy lens is said to create an unbalanced unit.
Perhaps when you've had some time to use it, you can give us a detailed Review?

I bought the lesser model the NEX5 which has the same sensor and only 3:1 Zoom, surprisingly its a very good video-cam (which I use 95% of the time), and the internal mic never fails to amaze. Not in the same price-range I'll agree, but I was on a budget (and bought the Pancake "kit" lens as the Dual-combo was cheaper !!!). However, it's a useless lens IMHO, except it will accept the two WA converters. I used it once, probably.
Yet, regularly I use an adaptor with a SLR prime lens which is excellent for nearly1:2 close-ups....and really low-light fiming, being f/1.8


rogs . . are the sensors any different in a true-camcorder? I thought the only difference was they are considerably smaller. Although Vids don't need the resolution of a Still-frame. There are other features that help with filming, whereas DSLR's nearly always miss this segment of the Market.
Panasonic's (Bridge DSLRs) are introducing powered Zooms (at a high price), so it will be interesting to see if Buyers find them useful.
 
Last edited:

Bob++

Active Member
I think that the mobile phone is the bigger threat. Both for stills and video. Everyone has one and many people don't see the need for anything more. This will reduce the size of the market for the consumer product. The mobile phone market is huge and intensely competitive, so the manufacturers are always looking for an edge - optics could well be one of the improvements in the pipeline.

I suspect that the professional market will carry on much the same, but for the rest of us, choice, and innovation will diminish. Existing kit will get cheaper and they may add bells and whistles, but it's hard to see what else they can do.

If you just want to video the kids playing, or a kitten for youtube - why spend £1000 when the phone in your pocket will do an adequate job. Plus you always have it with you and there is no need for all the extra kit that a videographer needs.
 
Last edited:

chrishull3

Well-known Member
DSLRs aren't that good at being video cameras. Apart from auto focus issues (a situation I believe is improving -- not sure though?), the ergonomics tend to be all wrong.

But the most telling difference is the lack of optical low pass filter, which can cause horrendous aliasing problems.

OK, people like all the fancy trick bits which a huge sensor helps with --interchangeable lenses, good low light performance, shallow depth of field etc.... but the slow scan rolling shutter, and the alias issues with DSLRs mean that camcorders probably have still have a bit of life in them yet.....

If filming family etc hand held is what is wanted cams are the best choice,but believe me my GH2 does not have horrendous aliasing problems and the AF is far from bad.
https://vimeo.com/38731935#at=0
https://vimeo.com/42061125#at=0
https://vimeo.com/30946808
https://vimeo.com/28656385 but for just once in a while filming children etc a cam is far the better choice but when stills and video are used a lot a camera that does good video is my choice now.
 

Chelters

Active Member
I think for the consumer, if they want more than a phone can offer then compacts like the TZ30 would be high on the list.

Edit: didn't see Chrishull3 post, that to is a great little thing from what I've read.
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
One advantage in having "phones" is that Authority can't ban them . . . "please turn off your mobile" is often a request at Meetings, but even if folk forget/can't, etc. they are unlikely to be confiscated - Whereas if you have a stills camera, or a Videocamera somehow it's "OK" to insist these are left at the door...

The situation regarding phones as a source for YouTube is perfetly OK - as long as we are prepared to watch "fuzzy-footage" in the belief that "content" is more important that seeing the images. Phone-footage will come under pressure as folk use large-screen TV's to watch YouTube (hence their claim to have HD content). For people to stay with the vid, it sure helps that the "content" is good, that's sharp vids and good sound - and that has to be everyones aim, I guess. Maybe YT should clock minutes watched, rather than a number of viewings, which might exit after the irritating ads that block the "content"....er, IMHO.

As usual it's almost always down to the sensor. For the present the technology is common to Cameras and other image devices, only the phone has a tiny sensor, so noise is an issue, except the definition is poor enough to mask the faults. Larger sensors are always better, IMHO esp in low-light.

Modern optics are amazing and probably commonly, we shall see zooms on phones.
 
Last edited:

petet66

Active Member
I think the situation is different for consumers and professionals. The majority of music videos for smaller bands (away from the top of the charts) are filmed on DSLRs but these are full frame chip cameras not the consumer models with their APS-C sensors. A camcorder to give such high (broadcast) quality would cost way in excess of a couple of thousand pounds.
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
pete66 I don't think DSLRs are Broadcast Quality*, except as stills.


*BBC hardware Spec.

However, there is so much low-res on TV these days I suppose DSLRs might be OK...since the output is recorded directly to DVD/BD and that is an accpetable standard.
BTW there was a Typo in my Post 11, - I means to say "Phones - you can't ban them" - whereas with camcorders/Cameras it is easy to do so.
 

chrishull3

Well-known Member
pete66 I don't think DSLRs are Broadcast Quality*, except as stills.


*BBC hardware Spec.

However, there is so much low-res on TV these days I suppose DSLRs might be OK...since the output is recorded directly to DVD/BD and that is an accpetable standard.
BTW there was a Typo in my Post 11, - I means to say "Phones - you can't ban them" - whereas with camcorders/Cameras it is easy to do so.

If you are bringing the pana GH2 into that statement you are wrong,i take it you did not look at Dan carters GH2 films,There is plenty of varying quality HD tv broadcast and i am happy with my gh2 footage ,my other camera a FZ150 that has 50P option but its video quality is well below the GH2s as was a Canon DSLR i once owned..
Where broadcast cameras have big advantages is the ease manual settings can be used,their audio and large size making hand holding easy,but watch many tv broadcasts and see moire and Aliasing just the same as with consumer cams.
Going back to the FZ150s 50P that can no where near match the GH2s 25P in a wrapper which can be used in Blu RAY unlike 50p which cant.
Finaly i must say again the little sony http://www.sony.co.uk/product/cam-high-definition-on-memory-stick/hdr-gw55ve looks a great little cam

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2083294/

http://vimeo.com/47140937#at=0
 
Last edited:

DocJackal

Well-known Member
12harry said:
However, there is so much low-res on TV these days I suppose DSLRs might be OK...since the output is recorded directly to DVD/BD and that is an accpetable standard.

don't mean to pick, but really the majority of programs now are being shot in HD. Also for broadcast the output is Digibeta for sd and HDCamSR for HD (although I believe this is moving to an AVCIntra tapeless format). Not sure if that's what you were you were getting at... Ignore me if not!

For my 2cents, DSLR cameras are still to complex and not enough IS for the average consumer folk filming kids, holiday film etc. For the amateur film maker etc then DSLR cameras give much of the freedom and quality of a broadcast Cam for a fraction of the price, so is naturally popular. For the Pro however, day in day out, the £25k+ PMW-500 etc is still the better choice and won't be replaced by a DSLR. However, for any pro there is always room for the handycam / DSLR in the right situation - right tools for the job and all that.

Also just for the record, every HD programme is allowed a certain percentage of sd material (it changes all the time but is around 10%). This allows for non bbc approved hd cameras to be used (such as dslr and goPro). Also to note its the bbc approved hd Cam list is not the be all and end all... In reality if the programme passes the hd analyzer at the end of it all then its all fine.
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
Sadly, "broadcast quality" has little to do with how sharp the image appears to be when viewed on your own telly (even big'uns).

It's a subject that is somewhat technical and confusing....but it is to do with the colour depth I understand and the full spec is often quoted as 4:4:2 . . . . Cameras typically have dynamic range of 13 stops, which is quite impressive.
However, this is not necessarily the preserve of large-sensor DSLRs (many Canons fail the Broadcast Spec, I understand, despite their price).
The Blackmagic (a recent DSLR-rival) is quoted as 4:2:2:

Why is so much spec needed when the viewer cannot receive it?
-Possibly because broadcasters are tying to be "ahead" of specs....since the camera isn't the most-expensive part of Production - AND - the several processes that footage must go through. Even though it is "digital" the various standards involved mean that some quality is lost.

I understand this is why Broadcast cameras are spec'd way above the need. For example a minimum now will be close to 4k (that's 4x 1080), although some Pro cameras aren't up to that yet, they will be very close.

Does anyone have "insider" info - that would help a bit.
 

chrishull3

Well-known Member
https://vimeo.com/47140937#at=0 Turn the sound down if naughty words are not to your liking ;) we get a lot on tv now, but its better color than i saw on any tv programn last night.
Why are only canons mentioned :confused:mirrorless cameras have interchangable lenses.
Many tv programns like dalton abbey are filmed with hugely expensive cameras like the cini alta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ci...sa=X&ei=EAEqULv1M8Gm0QWZ7YDYDw&ved=0CFoQsAQ&b
Cameras like this are by no meens used on all tv broadcasting,and should be the bees knees considering their cost.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom